.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
February 4, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL31865
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Summary
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established in 1981 as part of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (P.L. 97-35), is a block grant program under which the
federal government makes annual grants to states, tribes, and territories to operate home energy
assistance programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute authorizes two types of
funds: regular funds (sometimes referred to as formula funds), which are allocated to all states
using a statutory formula, and emergency contingency funds, which are allocated to one or more
states at the discretion of the Administration in cases of emergency as defined by the LIHEAP
statute.
States may use LIHEAP funds to help households pay for heating and cooling costs, for crisis
assistance, weatherization assistance, and services (such as counseling) to reduce the need for
energy assistance. According to the most recent data available from the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS), in FY2007, 52.8% of funds went to pay for heating assistance, 3.4% was
used for cooling aid, 17.9% of funds went to crisis assistance, and 10.1% was used for
weatherization. The LIHEAP statute establishes federal eligibility for households with incomes at
or below 150% of poverty or 60% of state median income, whichever is higher, although states
may set lower limits. However, in both the FY2009 and FY2010 appropriations acts, Congress
gave states the authority to raise their LIHEAP eligibility standards to 75% of state median
income. In FY2008, the most recent year for which HHS data are available, an estimated 33.5
million households were eligible for LIHEAP under the federal statutory guidelines. According to
HHS, 5.4 million households received heating or winter crisis assistance and approximately
600,000 households received cooling assistance that same year.
For FY2011, LIHEAP is funded through March 4, 2011, as part of the Continuing Appropriations
and Surface Transportation Extensions Act (P.L. 111-322), which was enacted on December 22,
2010, and amends the Continuing Appropriations Act enacted on September 30, 2010 (P.L. 111-
242). Pursuant to P.L. 111-322 (the CR), HHS is required to obligate to states, tribes, and
territories the same amount of LIHEAP regular funds as was obligated during the comparable
time period in FY2010 (i.e., through March 4, 2010). States request their share of LIHEAP
formula grants quarterly, and may request as much as 100% of their grants in the first quarter of
the fiscal year. State allocations under the CR therefore depend on the amount of funds that each
state requested in the first two quarters of FY2010, when the total amount appropriated for
regular funds was $4.5 billion. On January 13, 2011, HHS issued a press release announcing how
formula funds would be distributed, and on January 24, 2011, it announced the distribution of
$200 million in emergency contingency funds to all states, tribes, and territories. See columns (a)
and (b) of Table A-1 for these distributions.
This report describes LIHEAP funding, program rules, and eligibility. It will be updated as events
warrant.
Congressional Research Service
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
LIHEAP Funding ........................................................................................................................ 1
LIHEAP Funding Under the FY2011 Continuing Resolutions ............................................... 1
Regular Funds................................................................................................................. 1
Emergency Contingency Funds ....................................................................................... 3
Proposals to Fund LIHEAP in FY2011 Prior to Enactment of the Continuing
Resolutions ........................................................................................................................ 3
FY2010 Funding ................................................................................................................... 5
Distribution of FY2010 LIHEAP Contingency Funds ...................................................... 6
Program Rules and Benefits ........................................................................................................ 7
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility....................................................... 7
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available.................................................................................... 8
Use of Funds......................................................................................................................... 8
Households Served................................................................................................................ 8
Benefit Levels....................................................................................................................... 9
Funds and Their Distribution..................................................................................................... 12
Regular Funds..................................................................................................................... 12
Tier I............................................................................................................................. 12
Tier II ........................................................................................................................... 13
Tier III .......................................................................................................................... 13
Contingency Funds ............................................................................................................. 13
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds ............................................................................ 14
Other Funds ........................................................................................................................ 14
Legislative History.................................................................................................................... 14
Tables
Table 1. FY2011 Proposed LIHEAP Funding .............................................................................. 5
Table 2. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid for Select Years..................................................... 11
Table A-1. FY2011 LIHEAP Regular and Contingency Fund Allotments to States, Tribes,
and Territories Under the FY2011 Continuing Resolution (P.L. 111-322) ............................... 18
Table A-2. FY2010 LIHEAP Regular and Contingency Fund Allotments to States, Tribes,
and Territories ........................................................................................................................ 20
Table A-3. LIHEAP Funding by State FY2006 to FY2010......................................................... 23
Table A-4. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2011 ..................................................................... 26
Appendixes
Appendix. Tables Showing LIHEAP Funding Levels................................................................. 16
Congressional Research Service
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 28
Congressional Research Service
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Introduction
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance program (LIHEAP), established by Title XXVI of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (P.L. 97-35), is a block grant program under which
the federal government gives states, tribes, and territories annual grants to operate home energy
assistance programs for low-income households. The LIHEAP statute provides for two types of
program funding: regular funds (sometimes referred to in this report as “formula funds”) and
emergency contingency funds (sometimes referred to in this report as “contingency funds”).
Regular funds are allotted to states according to a formula prescribed by the LIHEAP statute.1
Contingency funds may be released and allotted to one or more states at the discretion of the
President and the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS).
The first section of this report describes proposed funding for LIHEAP in FY2011 and enacted
funding in FY2010. The second section of this report discusses LIHEAP rules, including
household eligibility and how funds may be used, and presents the most recent data available
from HHS regarding household characteristics and benefit levels. Finally, the third section
discusses how each category of LIHEAP funds is distributed to states, as well as a breakdown of
funds to the states during the last several fiscal years.
LIHEAP Funding
LIHEAP Funding Under the FY2011 Continuing Resolutions
In FY2011, LIHEAP has been funded by a series of continuing resolutions (CRs), each of which
funded most government programs at FY2010 levels—in the case of LIHEAP, this means $4.5
billion in regular funds. However, due to language in the CRs, combined with the proposed
funding level in the Senate Appropriations Committee-passed bill for FY2011 (S. 3686), as of the
date of this report states have not received the exact allocations that they would receive at an
appropriation of $4.5 billion. This is explained below.
Regular Funds
The First Three Continuing Resolutions (Through December 21, 2010)
Pursuant to the first three CRs (P.L. 111-242, P.L. 111-290, and P.L. 111-317), which extended
funding for most federal programs at FY2010 levels through December 21, 2010, LIHEAP
grantees were not able to receive their full allocations of regular funds at the $4.5 billion level.
This was due to a standard provision in continuing resolutions that states the following:
For those programs that would otherwise have high initial rates of operation or complete
distribution of appropriations at the beginning of fiscal year 2011 because of distributions of
funding to States, foreign countries, grantees, or others, such high initial rates of operation or
1 See Section 2604(a)-(d) of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act (Title XXVI of P.L. 97-35), as amended.
The section is codified at 42 U.S.C. § 8623(a)-(d).
Congressional Research Service
1
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
complete distribution shall not be made, and no grants shall be awarded for such programs
funded by this Act that would impinge on final funding prerogatives.2
The provision is meant to ensure that funds for a program that are released under a CR do not
exceed the amount that Congress ultimately appropriates for it. Typically, states are eligible to
receive their entire LIHEAP formula allocations in the first quarter of the fiscal year if they so
choose, qualifying as a program “that would otherwise have high initial rate of operation or
complete distribution of appropriations” at the beginning of FY2011 as stipulated in the CR.
Further, the Senate Appropriations Committee-passed FY2011 Departments of Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education Appropriations bill (S. 3686) raised the possibility that Congress
might appropriate less funding for LIHEAP in FY2011 than it did in FY2010 (S. 3686 would
have appropriated $2.7 billion in LIHEAP regular funds). If HHS had released regular fund
allocations at the $4.5 billion level, and the appropriation level in the Senate Committee proposal
of $2.7 billion had ultimately been enacted, then states would have received higher allocations
than the amount to which they would have been entitled under the final appropriation, impinging
on “final funding prerogatives.”
As a result, due to the difference in the level of formula funding for LIHEAP in FY2010
compared to the amount proposed by the Senate Appropriations Committee bill for FY2011, until
mid-December 2010 HHS limited LIHEAP state allocations to 75% of the amount they would
have received if the Senate Committee-passed appropriations bill was enacted.3 On December 10,
2010, due to concerns that states did not have sufficient funds to assist applicants, HHS
announced that states could receive 100% of their allocations at this $2.7 billion regular fund
level.4
The Fourth Continuing Resolution
Most recently, a fourth CR, the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions
Act (P.L. 111-322), was enacted on December 22, 2010, and increased the amount of LIHEAP
regular funds that states may receive for FY2011. P.L. 111-322, which amends P.L. 111-242, is
effective through March 4, 2010, and requires that HHS “obligate the same amount during the
period covered by this continuing resolution as was obligated for such purpose during the
comparable period during fiscal year 2010.”5 The amount that each state receives pursuant to this
provision therefore depends on the amount of funding that each state requested in the first two
quarters of FY2010 based on a regular fund level of $4.5 billion.
On January 12, 2011, HHS announced the distribution of funds under the fourth CR.6 Most states
did not receive exactly the amount that was obligated to them in FY2010 because funds had to be
prorated to account for three states (California, North Carolina, and Tennessee) that had requested
greater percentage allocations in the first quarter of FY2011 than they had in FY2010 and had
therefore already received more in FY2011 under the first three CRs than was obligated to them
2 See Section 109 of P.L. 111-242.
3 For state allocations at this rate, see http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ocs/liheap/2011_cr_state_allocations.xls.
4 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “HHS Makes Available More Than $670 Million in Additional
LIHEAP Funding,” press release, December 10, 2010, http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2010pres/12/20101210b.html.
5 See Section 162 of P.L. 111-322.
6 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “HHS increases total LIHEAP funding available to help low-income
families to $3.9 billion,” press release, January 12, 2011, http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2011pres/01/20110112a.html.
Congressional Research Service
2
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
in the first two quarters of FY2010. For example, in FY2010 California requested 25% of its
regular fund allocation in the first quarter; in the first quarter of FY2011, it requested 100% of its
allocation at $2.7 billion, or $119 million, which exceeded the amount obligated through March
4, 2010 (approximately $100 million). For the distribution of regular funds to states under the
fourth CR, see Table A-1, column (a).
Emergency Contingency Funds
On January 24, 2011, HHS announced that it would release $200 million in FY2011 emergency
contingency funds. All states, the District of Columbia, tribes, and territories received funding.
HHS based allocations on each state’s “old” LIHEAP formula percentage (84% of the
distribution) as well as the percentage of low-income households in each state that use heating oil
or propane to heat their homes (16% of the distribution). For the distributions of funds to the
states, see column (b) of Table A-1.
Proposals to Fund LIHEAP in FY2011 Prior to Enactment of the
Continuing Resolutions
The President’s budget proposed to provide $2.51 billion for LIHEAP regular funds and $790
million in emergency contingency funds, for a total of $3.3 billion in discretionary spending.
While this represented an increase over the President’s FY2010 request for regular and
contingency funds (by $100 million), it would have been a decrease from FY2010 funding levels,
in which Congress provided a total of $5.1 billion for LIHEAP—$4.51 billion in regular funds
and $590 million in contingency funds. However, as in FY2010, the President proposed a new
trigger mechanism for releasing LIHEAP funds. According to the budget, additional funds were
to be released “in response to energy price spikes as well as changes in the number of households
in poverty.”7 The budget estimated that the trigger would have resulted in mandatory budget
authority of $2 billion in FY2011. The proposal in the FY2011 budget differed from the FY2010
proposal, which would have triggered increased assistance only in response to energy price
increases and did not include an increase in the number of households in poverty as a basis for
additional funds to be released.
According to HHS budget documents, FY2011 fund releases would have been triggered if certain
benchmarks were met:8
• For oil and natural gas, if quarterly prices were at least 15% higher than in the
previous year’s quarter in either the third or fourth quarters of the calendar year
(from July through September and October through December, respectively).
Specifically, (1) at a 15% price increase, funds would have been distributed by
multiplying the percentage change in price by the greater of $250 million or 10%
of the previous year’s regular fund appropriation; (2) at a price increase of 30%
or greater, funds would have been distributed by multiplying the percentage
7 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, FY2011 Budget Appendix, February 2010, p. 494,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2011/assets/hhs.pdf.
8 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, FY2011 Congressional
Justification, pp. 31-32, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/olab/budget/2011/LIHEAP.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
increase in price by the greater of $300 million or 15% of the previous year’s
regular fund appropriation.
• For electricity, if quarterly prices were at least 10% higher than in the previous
year’s quarter for any of the four quarters of the calendar year. The amount of
funds released would have been the product of the percentage increase in price
multiplied by the greater of $250 million or 10% of the previous year’s regular
fund appropriation.
• In the case of poverty, if the ratio of the average number of participants in the
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as Food
Stamps) to the U.S. population in a fiscal year was at least 30% greater than the
ratio of participants for FY2008. The amount of funds released would have been
the product of any percentage increase over 30% and $6.25 billion. For example,
an increase of 50% would have resulted in the release of $1.25 billion (20% *
$6.25 billion).
Under the proposal, funds would have been distributed within 30 days of the time when the
requirements of the applicable trigger were met unless there were extenuating circumstances.9 In
determining how funds would be distributed to states, the Administration would have been
required to take into account the price increases or SNAP participation that caused the funds to be
released as well as the number of low-income households in each state. In addition, the
Administration would have had the discretion to use funds to respond to “extreme heat or cold,
energy supply disruptions, or a variety of other energy-related emergencies.”10
The Senate Appropriations Committee proposed to appropriate $3.3 billion for LIHEAP in
FY2011. The bill, S. 3686, was reported on August 2, 2010, and would have provided $2.7 billion
in regular funds. It would have maintained the proportional split between “old” and “new”
formula funds that was implemented in FY2009. Specifically, approximately 20% of regular
funds, $505 million, would have been distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP formula. The
remaining $2.2 billion would have been distributed according to the proportions of the “old”
formula. S. 3686 would have appropriated the same level of funding for emergency contingency
funds as was appropriated in FY2009 and FY2010—$590 million. In addition, the Senate
Appropriations Committee Report, S.Rept. 111-243, stated that “[t]he Committee
recommendation assumes enactment of [the President’s trigger] proposal.” However, neither S.
3686 nor S.Rept. 111-243 contained language to authorize the trigger.
The House Appropriations Subcommittee for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education recommended $5.1 billion for LIHEAP in FY2011; however, the
specifics of the proposal were not provided.11
9 Ibid., p. 32.
10 Ibid.
11 See the Subcommittee Summary Table, available on its website at http://appropriations.house.gov/images/stories/pdf/
lhhse/FY2011_LHHS_Summary_Tabel-07.15.2010.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Table 1. FY2011 Proposed LIHEAP Funding
(dollars in millions)
FY2011
FY2011
Senate
FY2010
FY2011
House
Committee-
Enacted:
President’s
Subcommittee
Passed Bill:
Type of Funding
P.L. 111-117
Request
Passed Billa
S. 3686
LIHEAP Regular Fundsb 4,510
2,510
—
2,710
Leveraging Incentive/
REACH Grants
27d 27c —
not
specified
Contingency Funds
590
790
—
590
Total Discretionary Funds
5,100
3,300
—
3,300
LIHEAP “Trigger”e
0
2,000
—
f
Total 5,100
5,300
5,100
3,300
Sources: The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117), the FY2011 budget appendix, the
FY2011 Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2011
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHE) appropriations bill (S. 3686), and the
House LHE Appropriations Subcommittee Summary Table.
a. As of the date of this report, details about the House Appropriations Subcommittee-passed bill had not
been released.
b. In addition to the set-aside for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants, the LIHEAP statute gives the HHS
Secretary authority to set aside up to $300,000 from the regular fund appropriation for training and
technical assistance. 42 U.S.C. § 8628a.
c. The amount proposed to be set aside for leveraging incentive grants in FY2011 was noted in the HHS
Congressional Budget Justifications and did not appear in the budget appendix.
d. P.L. 111-117 specified that not more than $27 million be used for leveraging incentive grants in FY2010.
e. In FY2010 and FY2011, the President’s budget proposed that a trigger mechanism be created whereby funds
would be released if energy price increases were to exceed certain levels or, as proposed in FY2011, if
participation in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program was to increase above a specified level. In
each case, the additional budget authority under the trigger would be mandatory funding.
f.
Regarding the President’s proposed LIHEAP trigger, S.Rept. 111-243 stated that the “Committee
recommendation assumes enactment of this proposal.” However, neither S. 3686 nor S.Rept. 111-243
contained language that would authorize the trigger proposal.
FY2010 Funding
The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117), enacted on December 16, 2009,
provided $5.1 billion for LIHEAP, the same amount that was appropriated in FY2009.12 The law
also maintained the same division of funds as in FY2009, with $4.51 billion allocated to LIHEAP
regular funds and approximately $590 million to emergency contingency funds. However, unlike
the FY2009 appropriation, which specified that the contingency funds be released within 30 days
of the law’s enactment, under the FY2010 law there was no time frame for releasing the
12 Prior to enactment of P.L. 111-117, LIHEAP was funded under two continuing resolutions (CRs): P.L. 111-68 and
P.L. 111-88. Under the two CRs, states were eligible to receive up to 75% of their regular fund allocations at an
appropriation of $4.51 billion (the FY2009 level).
Congressional Research Service
5
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
contingency funds. Regarding the regular funds, P.L. 111-117 distributed funds to the states in the
same way as FY2009, as follows:
• Approximately $840 million was distributed according to the “new” LIHEAP
formula. The new formula was enacted in 1984 and allocates funds to states on
the basis of the heating and cooling costs of low-income households. For more
information about the LIHEAP formula, see the section of this report entitled
“Funds and Their Distribution” or, for greater detail, see CRS Report RL33275,
The LIHEAP Formula: Legislative History and Current Law, by Libby Perl.
• The remaining $3.67 billion was distributed according to the proportion of funds
that states received under the “old” LIHEAP formula, which existed prior to the
enactment of the new formula in 1984.
See column (a) of Table A-2, at the end of this report, for the distribution of FY2010 LIHEAP
regular funds to the states, tribes, and territories.
In addition, P.L. 111-117 gave states the authority to raise eligibility guidelines for LIHEAP to
75% of state median income, a provision that was also included in the FY2009 appropriations act.
Ordinarily, states may set eligibility for LIHEAP assistance at the greater of 60% of state median
income or 150% of poverty.13
The amount for LIHEAP in P.L. 111-117 exceeded the President’s request for LIHEAP regular
and contingency funds by $1.9 billion; the President had proposed to provide $2.41 billion for
regular funds and $790 million for emergency contingency funds. In addition, P.L. 111-117 did
not include the President’s proposal for a new LIHEAP trigger whereby additional funds would
have been released “whenever there is a spike in energy costs.”14 The budget estimated that the
trigger would have resulted in mandatory budget authority of $450 million in FY2010.
Distribution of FY2010 LIHEAP Contingency Funds
The FY2010 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 111-117) provided $590 million for LIHEAP
contingency funds, the same amount that was appropriated in FY2009. However, unlike FY2009,
where the appropriations act required funds to be released within 30 days of the law’s enactment,
FY2010 did not require the release of contingency funds within a certain time frame.
The Administration distributed FY2010 contingency funds on two occasions. First, the
Administration announced the release of approximately $490 million of the FY2010 contingency
funds on January 20, 2010.
• Of the total, $450 million was released to all states, tribes, and territories. Each
state’s allocation was based on their share of formula funds received in FY2010
weighted by their three-month unemployment rate from September 2009 through
November 2009. The allotment to territories was based on their share of formula
grants.
13 42 U.S.C. § 8624(b)(2)(B).
14 Office of Management and Budget, A New Era of Responsibility, Renewing America’s Promise, p. 70,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/fy2010_new_era/A_New_Era_of_Responsibility2.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
• The remaining $40 million was released to 14 states where the number of heating
degree days (HDDs) from November 1, 2009, through January 9, 2010, exceeded
the 30-year norm for the same time period by at least 5%. (HDDs measure the
extent to which a day’s average temperature falls below 65° Fahrenheit. For
example, a day with an average temperature of 50° F results in a measure of 15
heating degree days.) These states then received amounts based on a ratio of the
product of total HDDs, the number of households at or below 125% of poverty,
and the unemployment rate to the sum of the products for all 14 states.
The second contingency fund distribution was announced on September 20, 2010. The remaining
funds—approximately $101 million—were distributed to all 50 states, the District of Columbia,
and the territories based on the proportions of the “old” LIHEAP formula.
Columns (b) and (c) of Table A-2, at the end of this report, show the amount of emergency
contingency funds distributed to each state in FY2010.
Program Rules and Benefits
Federal LIHEAP requirements are minimal and leave most important program decisions to the
states, the District of Columbia, the territories, and Indian tribes and tribal organizations
(collectively referred to as grantees) who receive federal funds. The federal government (HHS)
may not dictate how grantees implement “assurances” that they will comply with general federal
guidelines.
Federal Eligibility Standards and Grantee Responsibility
Federal law limits LIHEAP eligibility to households with incomes up to 150% of the federal
poverty income guidelines (or, if greater, 60% of the state median income). States may adopt
lower income limits, but no household with income below 110% of the poverty guidelines may be
considered ineligible. States may separately choose to make eligible for LIHEAP assistance any
household of which at least one member is a recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy
Families (TANF), Supplemental Security Income (SSI), Food Stamps, or certain needs-tested
veterans’ programs. LIHEAP assistance does not reduce eligibility or benefits under other aid
programs.
Within these limits, grantees decide which, if any, assistance categories to include, what income
limits to use, and whether to impose other eligibility tests. The statute gives priority for aid to
households with the greatest energy needs or cost burdens, especially those that include disabled
individuals, frail older individuals, or young children. Federal standards require grantees to treat
owners and renters “equitably,” to adjust benefits for household income and home energy costs,
and to have a system of “crisis intervention” assistance for those in immediate need. The LIHEAP
definition of “energy crisis” leaves room for each state to define the term slightly differently,
although generally, crisis assistance is provided to households that are in danger of losing their
heating or cooling due to problems with equipment, receipt of a utility shutoff notice, or
exhaustion of a fuel supply.15 Federal rules also require outreach activities, coordination with the
15 The LIHEAP statute defines an energy crisis as “weather-related and supply shortage emergencies and other
household energy-related emergencies.” 42 U.S.C. § 8622(3). For the state definitions of “crisis” see the HHS LIHEAP
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
7
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Department of Energy’s Weatherization Assistance Program, annual audits and appropriate fiscal
controls, and fair hearings for those aggrieved. Grantees decide the mix and dollar range of
benefits, choose how benefits are provided, and decide what agencies will administer the
program.16
Kinds of Energy Assistance Available
Funds are available for four types of energy assistance to eligible households:
• help paying heating or cooling bills;
• low-cost weatherization projects (e.g., window replacement or other home-
energy related repair; limited to 15% of allotment unless a grantee has a waiver
for up to 25%);
• services to reduce need for energy assistance (e.g., needs assessment, counseling
on how to reduce energy consumption; limited to 5% of allotment); and
• help with energy-related emergencies (winter or summer crisis aid).
Use of Funds
The greatest share of LIHEAP funding is used to offset home heating costs. In FY2007,
approximately 52.8% of all LIHEAP funds was used to provide heating assistance; all states
(including the District of Columbia) provided some heating assistance.17 Nearly all states also
offered crisis assistance, most of which is used for heating needs. In FY2007, 17.9% of LIHEAP
funds was used to provide winter/year-round crisis assistance in 48 states and summer crisis
assistance in six states.18 Also in FY2007, 3.4% of funds went for cooling aid (offered by 15
states); 10.1% of total LIHEAP funds was used for weatherization services (provided by 45
states); 7.8% of available funds went for administration and planning purposes (51 states), and
1.3% of the FY2007 funds was used to offer services to reduce the need for energy assistance
(provided by 24 states).19
Households Served
In FY2008, it is estimated that 5.4 million households received LIHEAP heating and/or winter
crisis assistance.20 This estimate attempts to remove duplication among households that received
(...continued)
Networker FY2007 compilation of definitions, available at http://www.liheap.ncat.org/tables/FY2007/
CrisisDef2007.doc.
16 Information regarding state LIHEAP program characteristics and contacts is available at http://www.liheap.ncat.org/
sp.htm.
17 Based on state-reported total LIHEAP obligations for FY2007 of $2.5 billion. U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Administration for Children and Families, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program Report to
Congress for Fiscal Year 2007, November 22, 2010, p. 19 (hereinafter, FY2007 LIHEAP Report to Congress).
18 Ibid., Table III-5, pp. 40-41.
19 Ibid., p. 19.
20 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, LIHEAP Home Energy
Notebook for Fiscal Year 2008, May 2010, p. 30 (hereinafter, FY2008 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook).
Congressional Research Service
8
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
both heating and winter crisis assistance. The number of households receiving heating and/or
winter crisis assistance in FY2008 increased from FY2007, when an estimated 5.3 million
households were served. Shortly after LIHEAP began, in FY1983, approximately 6.8 million
households received heating and/or winter crisis assistance. Since that time, the number of
households receiving assistance declined generally until FY2000, reaching a low of 3.6 million
recipients in FY1999. After FY2000, the number of recipient households began increasing again
to the current level. (See Table 2.)
The same trend can be seen in the percentage of federally eligible households that receive heating
and/or winter crisis assistance. In FY1983, the 6.8 million households that received funds
represented 31% of federally eligible households. By FY1999, the number of federally eligible
households receiving LIHEAP heating and/or winter crisis assistance had dropped to 12%. Since
FY2003, the percentage of federally eligible households receiving assistance has hovered
between 14% and 16%, settling at 16% for the last three fiscal years for which data are available
(FY2006 through FY2008).
The number of households receiving cooling and/or summer crisis assistance reached a high point
of 700,000 recipients in both FY2002 and FY2006. However, in FY2007 and FY2008,
cooling/summer crisis assistance nearly reached this level, with approximately 600,000
beneficiaries in each year.21
HHS estimates that of all households receiving LIHEAP heating assistance, about 32% had at
least one member 60 years of age or older; about 31% had at least one member with a disability;
and some 22% included at least one child five years of age or younger.22
Benefit Levels
Apart from federal funding levels, a variety of factors help determine to what extent LIHEAP is
able to meet its stated goal of assisting low-income households in meeting their home energy
needs. These include the following:
• the cost of energy for a given household (influenced by energy price fluctuations
and variation in kinds of fuels used);
• the amount of energy consumed (influenced by severity of the weather, energy
efficiency of housing, and expected standards of comfort); and
• the number of eligible households (influenced by population size and health of
the economy).
In FY2008, the constant dollar value of the average LIHEAP heating and winter crisis benefit
increased by about $12 from the previous year, FY2007. Measured in constant 1981 dollars (the
year in which LIHEAP was enacted), the average LIHEAP benefit per household in FY2008 was
$151, up from $139.23 However, the general trend in the constant dollar value of LIHEAP benefits
since the program’s beginning has been a decline. In FY1983, the average heating and winter
crisis benefit, measured in constant 1981 dollars, was $209. By FY1998, it had declined to $117,
21 See the FY2008 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30 and the FY2007 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 30.
22 FY2007 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 55.
23 FY2008 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 32.
Congressional Research Service
9
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
and although the average benefit reached $187 in FY2001, it generally declined again thereafter,
with the exception of $171 in FY2006, when funding was higher than in the immediately
preceding and subsequent years. (See Table 2.)
LIHEAP also covers a smaller portion of home heating bills than in earlier years. In FY2007, the
LIHEAP benefit covered 45% of the heating costs of LIHEAP-recipient households, compared to
54% in 1981.24 Between FY1990 and FY2007, the percentage of home heating bills covered by
the average LIHEAP benefit has ranged from 40% to 73%.
The constant dollar value of the cooling and summer crisis benefit, which is available to a more
limited number of households in far fewer states, has fluctuated over the years. While the average
benefit in 1981 was $129, in the years that followed the average benefit in constant 1981 dollars
declined as low as $57 in FY1983 and $49 in FY1990. However, the average benefit grew from
FY1990 levels, and by FY2000 and FY2001 the average benefit had reached $107. In recent
years, between FY2004 and FY2008, the constant dollar value has ranged from $91 (in FY2004
and FY2005) up to $105 in FY2006, and then down to $74 and $72 in FY2007 and FY2008
respectively.25
24 FY2007 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 42.
25 For the most recent constant dollar value funding levels, see the FY2008 LIHEAP Home Energy Notebook, p. 32.
Congressional Research Service
10
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Table 2. LIHEAP Heating/Winter Crisis Aid for Select Years
Fiscal
Years
1983 1990 1993 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Households
Number
receiving aid
6.8 5.8 5.6 3.9 3.6 3.9 4.8 4.4 4.8 5.0 5.3 5.5 5.3 5.4
(millions)
Number
federally
eligible
22.2 25.4 28.4 29.1 29.0 29.4 30.4 32.7 34.5 35.4 34.8 34.4 33.6 33.5
(millions)
Federally
eligible and
31% 23% 20% 13% 12% 13% 16% 13% 14% 14% 15% 16% 16% 16%
receiving aid
Benefit Levels
Average
benefit
$225 $209 $201 $213 $237 $270 $364 $291 $312 $277 $304 $385 $320 $362
(nominal $)
Average
benefit
$209 $147 $129 $117 $128 $140 $187 $147 $154 $132 $140 $171 $139 $151
(constant
1981 $)a
LIHEAP Coverage
LIHEAP
household
heating
expenditures 7.0% 5.2% 7.1% 5.2% 5.2% 5.2% 7.4% 6.2% 8.6% 8.4% 9.4% 11.2% 6.5% 7.1%
as a
percentage
of income
Percentage
of heating
costs offset
54% 51% 49% —b
—b 73% 68% 64% 48% 43% 40% 42% 45% —c
by LIHEAP
benefit
Source: Data on the percentage of heating costs offset and the annual heating costs of LIHEAP households for
FY1983, FY1990, and FY1993 come from the LIHEAP Reports to Congress for FY1983 through FY2007. Data
regarding benefit levels, average heating expenditures, and annual heating expenditures for FY2000 to the
present are drawn from the LIHEAP Home Energy Notebooks for FY1998 through FY2008.
a. The constant dol ars are based on the 1981 value of the benefit (using the CPI-U index).
b. CRS does not have data for heating costs offset in FY1998 and FY1999.
c. HHS has not yet released a report to Congress for FY2008.
Congressional Research Service
11
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Funds and Their Distribution
The LIHEAP statute authorizes regular funds appropriations, which are allocated to all states on
the basis of a statutory formula, and contingency fund appropriations, which are allocated to one
or more states at the discretion of the Administration. The statute also authorizes a smaller
amount of funds for incentive grants to states that leverage non-federal resources for their energy
assistance programs.
Regular Funds
Regular funds are distributed to states according to a three-tier formula in the LIHEAP statute and
based on the level of funds appropriated in a given fiscal year.26 The three-tier formula is the
result of changes to the LIHEAP statute in 1984 through the Human Services Reauthorization Act
(P.L. 98-558). Prior to the changes in P.L. 98-558, LIHEAP allotments to the states were based
largely on home heating needs with minimal consideration of cooling costs, and did not provide
for the use of updated data, including population and energy costs.
The new distribution formula provides that in determining state allotments the Department of
Health and Human Services shall use “the most recent satisfactory data available” and consider
home energy costs of low-income households (not simply all households, as was previously the
case). These changes to the calculation of state allotments mean that some states will receive a
smaller percentage share of regular funds, while some will receive a larger share. In order to
offset the losses to certain states resulting from the formula change, and “prevent severe
disruption to programs,”27 Congress implemented two “hold harmless” provisions in P.L. 98-558
to prevent states from losing too much funding. This resulted in the three-tier current law
formula, which is described in more detail below.
Tier I
The Tier I formula is used to allocate funds when the total LIHEAP regular fund appropriation is
less than $1.975 billion. Neither hold harmless provision applies at the Tier I level, and HHS
allocates funds according to the allotment percentages used under the pre-1984 formula. The old
formula is used because the amount of appropriated funds required to trigger the new formula is
$1.975 billion. The LIHEAP statute stipulates that for FY1986 and succeeding years, no state
shall receive less money than it would have received in FY1984 had the LIHEAP funding in that
year been $1.975 billion.28 According to HHS, then, the LIHEAP statute requires use of the old
allotment percentages when funding is less than $1.975 billion.29 Until FY2006, funding levels
26 States are defined to include the District of Columbia. Indian tribes receive funds out of state allotments that are
proportionate to their share of LIHEAP-eligible households in the state. Before state allotments are made, the statute
provides that at least one-tenth (but not more than one-half) of 1% of the total appropriation must be set aside for
energy assistance in American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
27 Report of the Committee on Energy and Commerce (H.Rept. 98-139, Part 2), to accompany H.R. 2439, May 15,
1984, p. 13.
28 42 U.S.C. § 8623(a)(2)(A).
29 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program: Report to
Congress for FY1987, p. 133. The statutory provision that provides for use of the old formula is 42 U.S.C. §
8623(a)(3).
Congressional Research Service
12
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
for LIHEAP only twice exceeded the $1.975 billion level, in FY1985 and FY1986. Thus, from
FY1987 through FY2005, states continued to receive the same allotment percentages they
received under the previous LIHEAP formula.
Tier II
For appropriations above $1.975 billion and up to $2.25 billion, the Tier II rate applies, and HHS
uses the formula enacted in 1984 to calculate state allotments. Under the Tier II formula, a hold
harmless level applies, and no state may receive less funding than it would have received under
the Tier I distribution rate as it was in effect for FY1984, assuming a $1.975 billion
appropriation.30 State allotment percentages may be different, however. To ensure that states
receive their hold harmless levels of funding, those states that gain the most funding under the
new formula must have their percentage share of funds ratably reduced to bring other states up to
the hold harmless level.31
Tier III
The Tier III formula applies to funding levels at or above $2.25 billion. The Tier III rate uses the
Tier II methodology to distribute funds, but adds a second hold-harmless requirement, a hold
harmless rate. States that would receive less than 1% of a $2.25 billion appropriation must have
their funds allocated using the rate that would have been used at a hypothetical $2.14 billion
appropriation (if this rate is greater than the calculated rate at $2.25 billion). In both the Tier II
and Tier III rates, a state will not be allocated less funds than the state received under the Tier I
distribution as it was in effect in FY1984 (had the appropriation level been $1.975 billion).
Contingency Funds
The statute currently provides an annual authorization of $600 million for LIHEAP contingency
funds (contingency funds are authorized indefinitely).32 Appropriated contingency funds may
only be released at the discretion of HHS and may be allocated to one or more states according to
their needs. The statute authorizes the appropriation of contingency funds “to meet the additional
home energy assistance needs of one or more states arising from a natural disaster or other
emergency.” The term “emergency” is defined in the LIHEAP statute to include a natural disaster;
a significant home energy supply shortage or disruption; significant increases in the cost of home
energy, home energy disconnections, participation in public benefit programs, or unemployment;
or an “event meeting such criteria as the [HHS] Secretary may determine to be appropriate.”
30 Since this language was enacted, Congress further provided that HHS could use regular LIHEAP funds
appropriations for Training and Technical Assistance (P.L. 99-425). It also authorized Leveraging Incentive Grants
(P.L. 101-501) and the REACH option (P.L. 103-252)—both of which it generally funds out of regular LIHEAP funds.
These debits on the regular funds account were not in place for FY1984. Because they affect the level of regular funds
available for state grant allotments by a little more than $25 million, it is possible but not certain that HHS would not
implement the newer formula before a regular funds appropriation level of approximately $2.0028 billion.
31 42 U.S.C. § 8623(a)(3).
32 42 U.S.C. § 8621(e).
Congressional Research Service
13
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Leveraging Incentive and REACH Funds
In 1990, P.L. 101-501 amended the program statute to provide a separate funding authorization of
$50 million ($30 million if regular funds appropriated are under $1.4 billion) for incentive grants
to states that leverage non-federal resources for their LIHEAP programs.33 Such resources might
include negotiated lower energy rates for low-income households or separate state funds. States
are awarded incentive funds in a given fiscal year on the basis of a formula that takes into account
their previous fiscal year success in securing non-federal resources for their energy assistance
program. In 1994 (P.L. 103-252) the statute was further amended to provide that of any incentive
funds appropriated, up to 25% may be set aside for the Residential Energy Assistance Challenge
Option (REACH). Under the REACH option states may be awarded competitive grants for their
efforts to increase efficiency of energy usage among low-income families and to reduce those
families’ vulnerability to homelessness and other health and safety risks due to high energy costs.
The funding authorization for Leveraging Incentive and REACH grants is separate from regular
funds, and the programs were not reauthorized in P.L. 109-58. In practice, however, Congress has
funded these initiatives at $22 million to $30 million with dollars set-aside out of annual regular
fund appropriations.
Other Funds
States are allowed to carry over unused funds from a previous fiscal year (limited to 10% of funds
awarded a state). A diminishing amount of money may also be available from previously settled
claims of price control violation by oil companies.34 In addition, the Social Services Block Grant
program allows states to transfer up to 10% of funds to provide low-income home energy
assistance,35 while the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program gives states the
discretion to use funds for home heating and cooling costs.36
Legislative History
Since it was created by the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (Title XXVI of
P.L. 97-35), the LIHEAP program has been reauthorized or amended seven times. The legislation
and some of the significant changes made are briefly discussed in the following paragraphs.
In 1984, P.L. 98-558, established a new formula by which regular LIHEAP funds are to be
distributed in every year (after FY1985) in which regular appropriations exceed $1.975 billion.
This level of funding was exceeded in FY1986 and again in FY2006.
In 1986, P.L. 99-425 extended the program with few changes. In 1990, P.L. 101-501 created the
Incentive Program for Leveraging Non-Federal Resources and authorized a July to June program
year (or forward funding) for LIHEAP to allow state program directors to plan for the fall/winter
heating season with knowledge of available money. This program year language was
33 42 U.S.C. § 8621(d).
34 FY2004 LIHEAP Report to Congress, p. 11. For FY2004, $2 million in oil overcharge funds was available to one
state.
35 42 U.S.C. § 1397a(d).
36 42 U.S.C. § 604(a)(1).
Congressional Research Service
14
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
subsequently removed, although the statute now states that money appropriated in a given fiscal
year is to be made available for obligation in the following fiscal year. Congress last provided
advance appropriations for LIHEAP in the FY2000 appropriations cycle.
In 1993, P.L. 103-43 extended the authorization of LIHEAP for one year but made no other
changes. In 1994 (P.L. 103-252) Congress stipulated that LIHEAP benefits and outreach activities
target households with the greatest home energy needs (and costs), and it enacted a separate and
permanent contingency funding authorization of $600 million for each fiscal year. The 1994 law
also established the competitive REACH grant option. In 1998, P.L. 105-285 authorized annual
regular funding for each of FY2002-FY2004 at $2 billion and made explicit a wide variety of
situations under which HHS is authorized to release LIHEAP contingency funds.
In 2005, the Energy Policy Act (P.L. 109-58) reauthorized the program and raised the LIHEAP
regular funds authorization level for FY2005 through FY2007 to $5.1 billion. It also explicitly
permitted the purchase of renewable fuels as part of providing LIHEAP assistance; required the
Department of Energy to report on use of renewable fuels in provision of LIHEAP aid; and
required HHS to report (within one year of the legislation’s enactment) on ways that the program
could more effectively prevent loss of life due to extreme temperatures. The law also allowed the
Secretary of the Interior, when disposing of royalty-in-kind oil and gas taken as payment from
lessees using federal land, to grant a preference for the purpose of providing additional resources
to support federal low-income energy assistance programs. (Lessees of federal land may pay
royalties to the U.S. government in oil and natural gas rather than cash payments.) However, the
Government Accountability Office issued a decision determining that the law did not give the
Interior Department sufficient authority to grant such a preference.37 Because of a provision in
existing law that the Interior Department cannot sell oil and gas obtained as in-kind royalties for
less than market price,38 the provision in P.L. 109-58 does not allow a price preference.
37 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Department of Interior—Royalty-in-Kind Oil and Gas Preferences, B-
307767, November 13, 2006, available at http://www.gao.gov/decisions/appro/307767.pdf.
38 42 U.S.C. § 15902(b)(3)(A).
Congressional Research Service
15
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Appendix. Tables Showing LIHEAP Funding Levels
In this Appendix are four tables that show how LIHEAP funds have been distributed to the states,
tribes, and territories during the last several fiscal years, as well as historical funding levels from
the time the program was created to the present.
Table A-1 shows how LIHEAP regular funds have been distributed thus far under a series of
FY2011 Continuing Resolutions (CRs). For a more comprehensive discussion of FY2011 funding
levels, see the section of this report entitled “LIHEAP Funding Under the FY2011 Continuing
Resolutions.”
• Column (a) of Table A-1 shows the amount of regular funds that states and tribes
received as of January 2011. In column (a), the first number shows the total
amount of regular funds distributed to each state and the tribes within the state,
while the second number, in parenthesis and italics, breaks out the amount set
aside for tribes within each state. Tribes may operate their own LIHEAP
programs if they wish. Their allotments are taken from the state’s award of
LIHEAP regular and contingency funds based on the number of LIHEAP-eligible
households in the tribe. Not all states have funds set aside for tribes.
• Column (b) shows the amount of emergency contingency funds allocated to each
state and tribe on January 24, 2011, when HHS announced the release of $200
million.
• Column (c) shows total FY2011 funding to the states as of the date of this report.
• Finally, allocations to the territories are in the next-to-last row, after the states.
Table A-2 provides a specific breakdown of LIHEAP funds distributed in FY2010.
• As described for Table A-1, column (a) of Table A-2 shows the FY2010 regular
fund distributions to states and to tribes within those states. The first number
represents total funds distributed to the state (including tribal funds), while the
second number breaks out the amount set aside for the tribes within the states
(if any).
• Columns (b) shows the January 2010 contingency fund distribution of $490
million to states and tribes. The first number shows the total amount of
contingency funds distributed to states and the tribes within the states, while the
second number, in parenthesis and italics, breaks out the total amount of
contingency funds set aside for tribes in each state.
• Column (c) shows the total amount of contingency funds distributed to states and
tribes in September 2010—approximately $101 million.
• Column (d) shows total funds, regular and contingency, distributed to the states
in FY2010.
• Finally, allocations to the territories are in the next-to-last row, after the states.
Table A-3 shows the total amount of LIHEAP regular and contingency funds distributed to each
state from FY2006 through FY2010; the totals include funds distributed to tribes within the
states.
Congressional Research Service
16
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Table A-4 provides historic funding levels for LIHEAP from the time the program was initially
funded, in FY1982, through FY2011. The table shows authorization levels for LIHEAP regular
funds, Administration budget requests for both regular and contingency funds, the total amount of
regular and contingency funds appropriated in each fiscal year, and the total amount of
contingency funds distributed.
Congressional Research Service
17
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Table A-1. FY2011 LIHEAP Regular and Contingency Fund Allotments to
States, Tribes, and Territories Under the FY2011 Continuing Resolution
(P.L. 111-322)
(dollars in millions)
Regular Funds
Emergency Contingency Funds
January 2011:
Total State & Tribal Regular
Total State & Tribal
Total
Fund Allotments:
Contingency Fund Allotments:
Funds
$3.95 billion
$200 million
Distributed:
(tribal set-aside, if any)
(tribal set-aside, if any)
$4.15 Billion
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
Alabama 52.352
(0.360)
2.151
(0.015)
54.503
Alaska
22.463
(8.771)
1.060
(0.414)
23.524
Arizona 16.789
(1.371)
0.923
(0.075)
17.712
Arkansas 34.868
1.416
36.283
California
119.615
(1.018)
8.711
(0.074)
128.326
Colorado 50.855
2.896
53.751
Connecticut 95.903
4.665
100.569
Delaware 13.524
0.682
14.206
District of
Columbia
13.842
0.590
14.433
Florida 98.255
(0.025)
3.069
(0.001)
101.324
Georgia 84.971
2.697
87.668
Hawai 3.031
0.208
3.239
Idaho 23.986
(1.164)
1.147
(0.056)
25.132
Illinois 230.370
10.228
240.599
Indiana 82.429
(0.007)
4.834
a
87.264
Iowa 67.076
3.452
70.528
Kansas 41.310
1.597
42.908
Kentucky 57.124
2.776
59.900
Louisiana
46.183
1.731
47.914
Maine 53.294
(1.948)
3.002
(0.110)
56.297
Maryland 77.067
3.403
80.470
Massachusetts 173.644
(0.069)
8.676
(0.003)
182.320
Michigan 184.922
10.131
(0.058)
195.054
Minnesota 142.979
7.318
150.297
Mississippi 38.702
(0.073)
1.801
(0.003)
40.503
Missouri 70.677
4.597
75.275
Montana 31.260
(5.464)
1.342
(0.235)
32.601
Nebraska 39.149
1.708
40.858
Congressional Research Service
18
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Regular Funds
Emergency Contingency Funds
January 2011:
Total State & Tribal Regular
Total State & Tribal
Total
Fund Allotments:
Contingency Fund Allotments:
Funds
$3.95 billion
$200 million
Distributed:
(tribal set-aside, if any)
(tribal set-aside, if any)
$4.15 Billion
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
Nevada 15.427
0.406
15.833
New
Hampshire
33.747
1.795
35.542
New Jersey
175.298
7.801
183.098
New Mexico
22.115
(1.761)
1.094
(0.087)
23.210
New York
474.119
(0.253)
26.125
(0.014)
500.243
North
Carolina
73.733
(1.311)
4.942
(0.088)
78.675
North Dakota
34.325
(7.414)
1.467
(0.317)
35.792
Ohio 110.359
9.477
119.836
Oklahoma 42.696
(3.910)
1.661
(0.152)
44.357
Oregon 44.873
(0.711)
2.282
(0.036)
47.156
Pennsylvania 268.085
14.008
282.093
Rhode Island
29.348
(0.083)
1.484
(0.004)
30.832
South Carolina
23.402
1.740
25.142
South Dakota
27.028
(4.806)
1.265
(0.225)
28.293
Tennessee 40.787
2.796
43.582
Texas 178.793
5.001
183.795
Utah 28.603
(0.472)
1.309
(0.022)
29.912
Vermont 22.765
1.284
24.049
Virginia 75.830
4.375
80.205
Washington 73.804
(3.003)
3.717
(0.151)
77.521
West Virginia
38.467
1.739
40.207
Wisconsin 128.702
6.652
135.354
Wyoming 12.804
(0.411)
0.540
(0.018)
13.344
Subtotal to
states
3,941.753
(45.461)
199.772
(2.158)
4,141.525
Territories 5.573
0.211
5.784
Total 3,947.326
200.000
4,147.310
Source: Funding levels are from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for
Children and Families.
a. The tribal al otment for Indiana was less than $1,000.
Congressional Research Service
19
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Table A-2. FY2010 LIHEAP Regular and Contingency Fund Allotments to
States, Tribes, and Territories
(dollars in millions)
Regular Funds
Contingency Funds
Total State & Tribal
January 2010:
September 2010:
Regular Fund
State & Tribal
State & Tribal
Allotments:
Contingency Funds:
Contingency Funds:
Total
$4.48 Billion
$490 Millionb
$101 Millionc
Funds
(tribal set-aside,
(tribal set-aside,
(tribal set-aside,
Distributed:
if any)a
if any)
if any)
$5.073 Billion
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Alabama 58.799
(0.340)
9.353
(0.064)
0.865
(0.006)
69.016
Alaska
25.308
(9.025)
2.322
(0.828)
0.552
(0.197)
28.182
Arizona 33.729
(2.558)
3.275
(0.248)
0.418
(0.032)
37.422
Arkansas 35.773
3.568
0.660
40.000
California
202.749
(1.720)
26.827
(0.228)
4.639
(0.039)
234.215
Colorado 64.257
4.800
1.617
70.675
Connecticut 96.942
8.793
2.110
107.845
Delaware 15.189
1.378
0.280
16.847
District of
Columbia
13.992
1.747
0.328
16.067
Florida 110.354
(0.028)
17.292
(0.004)
1.368
d
129.014
Georgia 87.252
13.758
1.082
102.091
Hawai 6.023
0.456
0.109
6.589
Idaho 26.939
(1.307)
2.587
(0.126)
0.631
(0.031)
30.158
Illinois 232.865
26.837
5.840
265.542
Indiana 104.151
(0.007)
10.780
(0.001)
2.644
d
117.575
Iowa 67.803
4.848
1.874
74.524
Kansas 41.757
(0.079)
3.644
(0.007)
0.861
(0.002)
46.262
Kentucky 57.742
8.714
1.376
67.832
Louisiana
51.870
6.299
0.884
59.054
Maine 54.309
(1.985)
4.752
(0.174)
1.367
(0.050)
60.428
Maryland 82.002
6.388
1.616
90.005
Massachusetts 175.524
(0.070)
16.857
(0.007)
4.221
(0.002)
196.602
Michigan 233.524
(1.202)
37.379
(0.192)
5.545
(0.029)
276.447
Minnesota 144.528
11.567
3.995
160.089
Mississippi 39.661
(0.075)
6.248
(0.012)
0.741
(0.001)
46.650
Missouri 95.257
9.555
2.333
107.145
Montana 31.598
(5.524)
2.192
(0.383)
0.740
(0.129)
34.530
Nebraska 39.573
(0.040)
2.393
(0.002)
0.927
(0.001)
42.893
Nevada 15.841
2.181
0.196
18.218
Congressional Research Service
20
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Regular Funds
Contingency Funds
Total State & Tribal
January 2010:
September 2010:
Regular Fund
State & Tribal
State & Tribal
Allotments:
Contingency Funds:
Contingency Funds:
Total
$4.48 Billion
$490 Millionb
$101 Millionc
Funds
(tribal set-aside,
(tribal set-aside,
(tribal set-aside,
Distributed:
if any)a
if any)
if any)
$5.073 Billion
State
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
New Hampshire
34.112
2.512
0.799
37.423
New Jersey
177.196
18.341
3.918
199.455
New Mexico
22.355
(1.780)
1.861
(0.148)
0.524
(0.042)
24.739
New York
479.526
(0.255)
45.029
(0.024)
12.794
(0.014)
537.348
North Carolina
109.339
(1.945)
15.893
(0.283)
1.907
(0.034)
127.139
North Dakota
34.325
(7.026)
1.538
(0.315)
0.804
(0.165)
36.668
Ohio 223.108
24.760
5.166
253.035
Oklahoma 47.902
(4.336)
4.493
(0.414)
0.795
(0.073)
53.190
Oregon 45.355
(0.715)
5.421
(0.085)
1.254
(0.020)
52.029
Pennsylvania 282.279
26.206
6.872
315.357
Rhode Island
29.666
(0.084)
4.084
(0.012)
0.695
(0.002)
34.444
South Carolina
47.311
8.234
0.687
56.232
South Dakota
27.878
(4.957)
1.458
(0.259)
0.653
(0.116)
29.989
Tennessee 72.092
11.413
1.394
84.899
Texas 183.593
26.938
2.276
212.807
Utah 32.094
(0.499)
2.158
(0.034)
0.752
(0.012)
35.003
Vermont 25.568
1.773
0.599
27.941
Virginia 100.856
7.103
1.968
109.927
Washington 74.603
(3.035)
7.324
(0.298)
2.062
(0.084)
83.989
West Virginia
38.884
3.568
0.911
43.363
Wisconsin 130.096
11.522
3.596
145.214
Wyoming 12.850
(0.210)
0.974
(0.219)
0.301
(0.003)
14.124
Subtotal to States
and Tribes
4,476.302
(48.800)
489.391
(4.367)
100.542
1.082
5,066.234
Territories 6.070
0.609
0.136
6.816
Total 4,482.372
490.000
100.678
5,073.050
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) data.
a. Tribes may operate their own LIHEAP programs if they wish. Their allotments are taken from the state’s
award of LIHEAP regular and contingency funds based on the number of LIHEAP-eligible household in the
tribe. In columns (a), (b), and (c) of this table, the first number represents the total amount of regular or
contingency funds awarded to each state, including any amounts for tribes, while the number in parenthesis
is the total amount allotted to a tribe or tribes within the state.
b. In January 2010, HHS awarded $450 million in contingency funds to all states, tribes, and territories based
on their share of FY2010 formula grants weighted by the unemployment rate. Also in January 2010, HHS
Congressional Research Service
21
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
awarded $40 million in contingency funds to 14 states where the number of heating degree days (HDDs)
from November 1, 2009, through January 9, 2010, exceeded the 30-year norm by at least 5%. These states
then received amounts based on the ratio of the product of total HDDs, the number of households at or
below 125% of poverty, and the unemployment rate to the sum of the products for al 14 states.
c. In September 2010, HHS awarded $101 million to all states, tribes, and territories based on the proportions
of the “old” LIHEAP formula.
d. Tribes in Florida and Indiana received funding of less than $1,000.
Congressional Research Service
22
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Table A-3. LIHEAP Funding by State FY2006 to FY2010
(dollars in millions)
Total Funds Distributeda
State
(regular and contingency)
(includes tribal
allotments)
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
Alabama 31.972
22.205
19.221
64.274
69.016
Alaska
18.473
12.454
16.856
30.928
28.182
Arizona 15.399
8.551
9.296
31.084
37.422
Arkansas 23.336
15.749
14.667
39.711
40.000
California
157.626
94.855
103.117
248.487
234.215
Colorado 44.842
33.073
41.326
71.352
70.675
Connecticut 71.106
48.102
65.618
125.887
107.845
Delaware 10.954
5.727
6.929
18.748
16.847
District of Columbia
8.165
6.700
7.284
16.249
16.067
Florida 49.798
27.977
30.414
101.701
129.014
Georgia 40.026
28.564
24.047
80.410
102.091
Hawai 2.567
2.228
2.403
5.182
6.589
Idaho 14.772
12.901
13.916
30.012
30.158
Illinois
193.814
119.418
149.216 265.679 265.542
Indiana 75.336
54.069
67.561
116.487
117.575
Iowa 52.054
38.319
47.881
76.929
74.524
Kansas 27.722
19.746
22.137
49.541
46.262
Kentucky 45.320
32.010
30.588
75.055
67.832
Louisiana
32.671
22.499
19.651
61.502
59.054
Maine 45.146
33.719
46.536
79.187
60.428
Maryland 61.889
33.036
35.913
109.164
90.005
Massachusetts 126.476
93.795
126.492
213.500
196.602
Michigan 154.671
113.377
141.667
249.416
276.447
Minnesota 110.849
81.681
102.063
163.982
160.089
Mississippi 27.467
17.871
16.479
42.622
46.650
Missouri 78.220
52.645
59.603
114.902
107.145
Montana 22.789
15.132
18.907
35.202
34.530
Nebraska 28.643
18.950
23.679
44.086
42.893
Nevada 7.247
4.016
4.366
14.599
18.218
New Hampshire
27.740
18.769
25.635
47.737
37.423
New Jersey
115.046
80.120
108.707
185.773
199.455
New Mexico
12.491
10.705
11.638
27.451
24.739
Congressional Research Service
23
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Total Funds Distributeda
State
(regular and contingency)
(includes tribal
allotments)
FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010
New York
382.251
261.604
359.628
538.243
537.348
North Carolina
72.413
45.974
42.383
132.528
127.139
North Dakota
24.680
16.438
20.539
38.240
36.668
Ohio 164.226
105.643
132.004
245.750
253.035
Oklahoma 29.543
19.282
17.668
52.878
53.190
Oregon 25.116
25.633
27.650
51.460
52.029
Pennsylvania 202.324
140.520
191.759
308.394
315.357
Rhode Island
23.131
15.471
20.875
38.653
34.444
South Carolina
25.279
17.636
15.266
51.047
56.232
South Dakota
20.117
13.350
16.681
31.058
29.989
Tennessee 47.139
33.568
30.985
80.512
84.899
Texas 84.005
46.545
50.599
169.196
212.807
Utah 23.285
15.369
19.204
35.755
35.003
Vermont 20.903
14.162
19.370
36.156
27.941
Virginia 75.053
40.241
43.746
127.668
109.927
Washington 41.226
42.163
45.481
84.645
83.989
West Virginia
24.543
18.621
20.157
45.019
43.363
Wisconsin 99.837
73.525
91.872
147.608
145.214
Wyoming 9.284
6.153
7.689
14.315
14.124
Subtotal to states and
tribes
3,128.981
2,130.860
2,587.373
5,065.966
5,066.234
Territoriesb 3.456
2.788
3.014
6.734
6.816
Leveraging/REACHc 27.225
27.225 —d 27.000 27.000
Training/tech. asst.e
0.297
0.297
0.292
0.300
0.300
Total 3,160
2,161
2,591
5,100
5,100.350
Source: Compiled by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) using U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) data.
a. The totals shown in these columns include regular fund allocations to states and tribes, and any contingency
funds awarded to states and tribes in that year.
b. The statute provides that HHS must set aside not less then one-tenth of 1% and not more than one-half of
1% for use in the territories (American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S.
Virgin Islands).
c. The statute provides a separate funding authorization for competitive grants under the leveraging incentive
program (designed to encourage states to increase non-federal support for energy assistance). It also
provides that up to 25% of any leveraging funds made available may be reserved for competitive REACH
grants (for state efforts to increase efficient use of energy among low-income households and to reduce
their vulnerability to homelessness and other problems due to high energy costs). Congress has in recent
years stipulated that a certain portion of the LIHEAP regular funds be set aside for leveraging grants and, of
this amount, HHS has reserved 25% for REACH grants.
Congressional Research Service
24
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
d. The FY2008 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) did not specify funds for leveraging incentive
and REACH grants.
e. The statute provides that HHS may reserve up to $300,000 for making grants or entering into contracts
with states, public agencies, or private nonprofits that provide training and technical assistance related to
achieving the purposes of the LIHEAP program.
Congressional Research Service
25
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Table A-4. LIHEAP Funding: FY1982 to FY2011
(dollars in thousands)
Regular Funds
Contingency Fundsa
Fiscal
President’s
President’s
Total
Year Authorized
Request
Appropriated
Request
Appropriated Distributed Distributed
1982 1,875,000 1,400,000 1,875,000
—
—
—
1,875,000
1983 1,875,000 1,300,000 1,975,000
—
—
—
1,975,000
1984 1,875,000 1,300,000 2,075,000
—
—
—
2,075,000
1985 2,140,000 1,875,000 2,100,000
—
—
—
2,100,000
1986 2,275,000 2,097,765 2,100,000
—
—
—
2,100,000
1987 2,050,000 2,097,642 1,825,000
—
—
—
1,825,000
1988 2,132,000 1,237,000 1,531,840
—
—
—
1,531,840
1989 2,218,000 1,187,000 1,383,200
—
—
—
1,383,200
1990 2,307,000 1,100,000 1,443,000
—
—
—
1,443,000
1991 2,150,000 1,050,000 1,415,055
NAb 195,180
195,180
1,610,235
1992
2,230,000 925,000 1,500,000 100,000 300,000
0 1,500,000
1993 ssanc 1,065,000 1,346,030
0
595,200
0 1,346,030
1994 ssanc 1,507,408 1,437,402
0
600,000 300,000 1,737,402
1995 2,000,000 1,475,000 1,319,202
d 600,000
100,000
1,419,202
1996 2,000,000 1,319,204
900,000
e 180,000
180,000
1,080,000
1997 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
300,000
420,000
215,000 1,215,000
1998 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
300,000
300,000
160,000 1,160,000
1999 2,000,000 1,000,000 1,100,000
300,000
300,000
175,299 1,275,299
2000 ssanc 1,100,000 1,100,000 300,000 900,000 744,350f 1,844350f
2001 ssanc 1,100,000 1,400,000 300,000 600,000g 455,650h 1,855,650
2002 2,000,000 1,400,000 1,700,000
300,000
300,000
100,000i 1,800,000
2003 2,000,000 1,400,000 1,788,300j 300,000
0
200,000k 1,988,300
2004 2,000,000 1,700,000 1,789,380
300,000
99,410
99,410 1,888,790
2005 5,100,000 1,900,500l,m 1,884,799 200,000 297,600
277,250 2,162,050
2006 5,100,000 1,800,000l 2,480,000 200,000 681,000 679,960 3,160,000
2007 5,100,000 1,782,000 1,980,000
0
181,000
181,000 2,161,000
2008 —n
1,500,000 1,980,000 282,000 590,328 610,678o 2,590,678
2009 —n 1,700,000
4,509,672 300,000 590,328 590,328
5,100,000
2010 —n 2,410,000p 4,509,672 790,000 590,328 590,678 5,100,350
2011 —n 2,510,000q — 790,000 — 200,000r 4,147,310r
Source: Prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) on the basis of HHS data.
a. In 1994, Congress enacted a permanent $600 million annual authorization for contingency funding. As
shown, however, before this authorization contingency funds were sometimes made available.
Congressional Research Service
26
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
b. Congress first al ocated emergency contingency funds in January of 1991 due to the price of home heating
oil (P.L. 101-517). Funds were not requested in the President’s budget until FY1992.
c. Such sums as necessary.
d. The President’s FY1995 request would have made the unal ocated contingency funds that were
appropriated in FY1994 (P.L. 103-112) available until expended.
e. The President’s FY1996 request would have made the unal ocated contingency funds that were
appropriated in FY1995 (P.L. 103-333) available until expended.
f.
The Administration released $400 million of the FY2000 contingency funds in late September 2000, making
them effectively available to states in FY2001.
g. The initial contingency fund appropriation for FY2001was $300 mil ion (P.L. 106-554). The Administration
released the entire amount by December 30, 2000. On July 24, 2001, the 2001 Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-20) provided an additional $300 million in contingency funds.
h. The distributed contingency funds in FY2001 included the $300 million appropriated in P.L. 106-554 and the
amount remaining from FY2000 (approximately $156 million). The $300 million that was appropriated as
part of P.L. 107-20 was made available until expended; a portion was distributed in FY2003 and the
remainder was converted to regular funds that same year.
i.
The FY2002 contingency funds were distributed out of the total FY2002 contingency appropriation (P.L.
107-116). With the end of FY2002, the remainder of the contingency funds expired ($200 million).
j.
The FY2003 appropriations act (P.L. 108-7) included $1.688 billion in new regular funds and converted into
regular funds $100 million of remaining contingency funds originally appropriated in FY2001 (P.L. 107-20).
k. FY2003 contingency funds were distributed out of contingency dol ars appropriated as part of the FY2001
supplemental (P.L. 107-20).
l.
Of the amounts requested by the President in FY2005 and FY2006, $500,000 was to be set aside for a
national evaluation.
m. In FY2005, the President’s initial budget request for LIHEAP regular funds was $1,800,000,500. However, on
November 14, 2004, the President submitted a budget amendment to Congress, requesting $1,900,000,500
for LIHEAP regular funds.
n. LIHEAP has not been authorized in FY2008, FY2009, FY2010, and FY2011.
o. Of the contingency funds distributed in FY2008, $20 million came from funds appropriated in the FY2005
Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 108-447).
Contingency funds in P.L. 108-447 were made available until expended.
p. In FY2010, the President proposed that a mechanism be created whereby additional LIHEAP funds would be
released when energy price increases reached certain levels; the proposal was not adopted by Congress.
The Administration estimated that this “trigger” would have resulted in mandatory budget authority of
$450 million. This estimate is not included in the table.
q. In FY2011, the President again proposed a trigger to release additional LIHEAP funds. In addition to
proposing that funds be released when energy prices increase, the FY2011 proposal would release funds
when participation in SNAP (formerly known as Food Stamps) increases above a certain level. The
Administration estimates that this trigger would result in mandatory budget authority of $2 billion. This
estimate is not included in the table.
r. As of the date of this report, Congress had not enacted a year-long appropriation bill for LIHEAP (or most
federal programs). However, under the continuing resolutions HHS has distributed $200 million in
emergency contingency funds and approximately $3.95 billion in regular funds.
Congressional Research Service
27
.
The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP): Program and Funding
Author Contact Information
Libby Perl
Specialist in Housing Policy
eperl@crs.loc.gov, 7-7806
Congressional Research Service
28